Melendres v. Arpaio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “once the named plaintiff demonstrates her individual standing to bring a claim, the standing inquiry is concluded, and the court proceeds to consider whether the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class certification have been met.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. B.K. By Next Friend Tinsley v. Snyder · Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

2. “[A]ny issues regarding the relationship between the class representative and the passive class members—such as dissimilarity in injuries suffered—are relevant only to class certification, not to standing. Stated differently, representative parties who have a direct and substantial interest have standing; the question whether they may be allowed to present claims on behalf of others who' have similar, but not identical, interests depends not on standing, but on an assessment of typicality and adequacy of representation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. B.K. By Next Friend Tinsley v. Snyder · In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.

3. “when courts have found a disjuncture between the claims of named plaintiffs and those of absent class members, they have not always classified the disjuncture consistently, some referring to it as an issue of standing, and others as an issue of class certification.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.